@dr-shorthair wrote:
> I'm reluctant to provide a second option at this level. As soon as you have more than one alternative, you begin to lose interoperability. I understand that '1:50,000' etc is the cartographic tradition, and geographers routinely infer resolution from this ('what is the distance on the ground of the thickness of a pencil line on the map?'). But a length measure is more direct and less ambiguous, and also applies to gridded data.
>
> While more detail and options can be given using the DQV structures shown above, I really think we should add only one option in the DCAT namespace.
I would also prefer to have one solution that fits all use cases, but we should also recognise that this two ways of expressing spatial resolution (i.e., distance and equivalent scale) are not comparable or convertable. So, IMO, the use of two different properties is more than acceptable.
BTW, my request is based also on an explicit requirement from GeoDCAT-AP - which is defining mappings from ISO 19115:2003, where spatial resolution is expressed either as distance or equivalent scale.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by andrea-perego
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/84#issuecomment-469463105 using your GitHub account